Want to make your research look, feel, & function like real online choices?
I'm making a tool called Experimental Realism AI to do that. Try it out! bit.ly/41YUxzk

Check out our examples at the above link (e.g., Amazon consumer choice, Netflix, ..) along with how to integrate this with Qualtrics.

Ben ik te cynisch als ik verwacht dat:

a) hier structureel NWO geld voor gebruikt gaat worden

b) over een jaar dit beleid gestopt wordt

c) het geld dan wegbezuinigd wordt

d) waarna de NL wetenschap het weer met minder geld mag doen (maar dan met een paar extra professoren op de loonlijst)

Fact-checking wasn’t “biased” against conservatives. Conservatives just shared more false content. If there’s a sportsball game and one team fouls four times as much, it’s not “biased” for the ref to call four times as many fouls against that team.

Congrats! Let me then feel proud for you.

Hope you find that pride yourself soon as well.

(And remember that if sometimes crap also gets published in top-journals, it should not hurt your pride for the work that you create).

A full house for the first Dutch Consumer Behavior day! Great show of research from all over the Netherlands.

Mooi artikel over ons onderzoek naar hoe we nudges beter kunnen maken.

www.trouw.nl/cs-b056fcba

Thanks! Was a super nice project to work on. Quite humbling to realize our own scholarly developed nudges (as were those made by the experts from the bank) were evaluated so much worse compared to (most) of the crowd.

Note that this is an initial step; we're not saying we should replace all expert nudges with crowdsourced ones. But this is a feasible option to generate effective nudges.

We hope to add more crowdsourced nudges to future studies, so we can later thoroughly analyze when they work best .

We followed up by running a field experiment in the bank's app (N>4,5million), and found that the best versions from the crowd increased the number of people visiting the feature (and thus getting a better overview of their nr of subscriptions) by over 60,000 people.

The crowd generated 200 possible idea, we added some and the bank itself added some. Another group of respondents from the crowd then evaluated them; the best one from the bank was ranked 68/154, our best one as researchers ranked 100th...

For 2) Recent megastudies find that experts were not very good at predicting which nudges would work. We let the crowd generate potential nudges to let people try a new feature in their banking app (collaboration with Rabobank) that gave them an overview of their subscriptions.

For 1); we collaborated with Nibud, the Dutch budgeting Institute. With large surveys (N>4400) we document people severely underestimate the nr of subscriptions they have and their cost.

When made aware of this they realize they are oversubscribed and want to cancel some.

New paper in PNAS (with Anna Paley)! 2 contributions:
1)      People have many more subscriptions than they think they have, and if they know this they intend to cancel some
2)      We use crowdsourcing to generate and evaluate nudges, and find that they performed better than those made by experts

Not sure if it is close to what you look for, but also check the nice work of colleagues Anna & Rob who find that the more people enjoy something, the more they overestimate their abilities. Such a great observation that can explain some consumption effects.

This is a step needed for marketing as well. Econ largely solved this reproducibility problem by requiring this.

First reproducibility, then on to replicability!

Another line of work studies coalition formation; why often the strongest bargaining party is left out of coalitions and the weaker parties bond together. We create open software that allows studying actual 3party coalition formation with large samples.

more at www.nielsvandeven.nl/projects/285...

In several papers we investigate how people perceive those who shed a tear, and find that they elicit a willingness to help (finding a function for tears).

The large cross-cultural Registered Report is a form of team science I think we should do more of!

see www.nielsvandeven.nl/projects/285...

A meta-analysis and replication project show that moral licensing is not always robust. Also, moral licensing assumes a good deed leads to a bad action; but we think a temptation makes people search for a reason (which they find in the prior good deed)

More at www.nielsvandeven.nl/projects/285...

A second line of research deals with people's tendency to be greedy. We created a measure to test how greedy someone is, and how it relates to financial outcomes, unethical behavior, etc.

A brief discussion of our papers on this topic can be found at www.nielsvandeven.nl/projects/285...

A first research line is on #Envy & #Inequality. Where most people see envy as something negative, we have multiple papers showing the potential bright side of this deadly sin as it can also motivate people to do better.

A brief discussion of our papers on this: www.nielsvandeven.nl/projects/285...

Introduction time! I'm a happy academic studying #ConsumerBehavior at the #Marketing department of #TilburgUniversity. I'll be sharing a few posts linking to my lines of research (click on this post to see them).

Other than this, I like travelling, #NACBreda, and really like all my girls at home.